1973 (4) TMI 126 - HC - Indian Laws

Clarification on Tenancy Issues Framing and Referral

The Court emphasized the importance of properly framing issues related to tenancy on agricultural land. It clarified that vague averments by defendants ... - Issues:Determining tenancy status on agricultural land based on vague pleas and the obligation of the Civil Court to refer such issues to the authorities under the Act.Analysis:The judgment dealt with revision applications where the defendants claimed tenancy of agricultural land in a suit. The Court highlighted the importance of properly framing issues related to tenancy. It emphasized that under Section 35-A of the Act, if an issue regarding tenancy is raised, the Civil Court must refer it to the authorities under the Act for determination. The Court noted that vague averments by defendants regarding tenancy often lead to issues being raised improperly. The Judge stressed that a material proposition of fact or law must be affirmed and denied by the parties before framing an issue under Order 14 of the Civil Procedure Code.The Court pointed out that requesting specific details such as the time, person, and terms of the alleged tenancy is crucial before framing an issue based on tenancy claims. If the defendant fails to provide such particulars, the Court should refrain from raising an issue solely on vague pleas. The judgment clarified that once an issue on tenancy is framed, the Court has no discretion but to refer it to the authorities under the Act for decision. In this case, the Court found that the Judge erred in directing the defendants to produce prima facie evidence of tenancy, as the determination of tenancy falls under the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act.Furthermore, the Court suggested that legislative modifications may be necessary to allow the Court discretion in deciding whether a bona fide dispute exists that requires referral to the authorities under the Act. However, in the present cases, since the issue of tenancy was raised, the Court held that it was mandatory to refer the matter to the authorities under the Act for determination. As a result, the revision applications were allowed, and the trial Court was directed to refer the tenancy issue to the appropriate authorities. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs in the revision applications.